Jamie_B Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Because that's not condescending at all you prick. I think you don't understand the difference between "nothing" and "not enough to prosecute". Maybe you need to do a little more research into how prosecution in this country works. Again, it's never surprising that there is a lack of evidence when the police on the scene are not interested in collecting it. You do realize there is no way for the DOJ to go back in time to the actual scene and find evidence that was lost, never recovered or covered up? You've heard the term "first 48 hours" right? It's almost impossible for a second party to investigate a crime when the evidence was lost/not collected originally.The farther you get from the actual crime the more ethereal the evidence becomes and the more unreliable any eye witness testimony gets. If the original police department that investigated the crime ignored/lost/covered up evidence it goes from nearly impossible to ABSOLUTELY impossible. Ya know? Anyway every single person that keeps referencing the one DOJ report regarding Wilson keeps ignoring the other DOJ report regarding the entire department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 You know that the prosecutor essentially laid out all this evidence when he didn't have to when they first investigated this correct? You know that the prosecutor coached witnesses, ignored others, and essentially functioned as a defense attorney rather than a prosecutor.. correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 You know that the prosecutor coached witnesses, ignored others, and essentially functioned as a defense attorney rather than a prosecutor.. correct? If you want to feel that way go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 If you want to feel that way go for it. You were saying something about reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 You were saying something about reality? You are taking something that is not there, and saying that it's not there because the powers that be didn't collect it. You are making wild assumptions and acting like they are fact. "There is an absence of this evidence, it's not because there wasn't any evidence it is because they didn't pick it up." If that logic follows than anyone can be guilty of anything and all you have to do is say that those in charge of collecting the evidence did a poor job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Hey Weston, if you close your eyes you'll see what you think and nothing more. And it seems to me that's what you're doing while calling others biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Because that's not condescending at all you prick. wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Hey Weston, if you close your eyes you'll see what you think and nothing more. And it seems to me that's what you're doing while calling others biased. Thats not true. I am saying we don't know what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 wow It was condescending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 I didn't mean for it to be condescending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 You are taking something that is not there, and saying that it's not there because the powers that be didn't collect it. You are making wild assumptions and acting like they are fact. "There is an absence of this evidence, it's not because there wasn't any evidence it is because they didn't pick it up." If that logic follows than anyone can be guilty of anything and all you have to do is say that those in charge of collecting the evidence did a poor job. I guess you seem to think that the police department that has egg all over it's face because the DOJ just undressed it as a corrupt and racist institution deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure you are right and everything was completely by the book and above board in this instance though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 The prosecutor and the feds both looked into it. They came to the same conclusion. You can't swipe that widely with your brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 The prosecutor and the feds both looked into it. They came to the same conclusion. You can't swipe that widely with your brush. Osmium! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Imagine you and a buddy go to a restaurant, separately. Not the same one as before. You each order a steak. You go ten times. For some reason when you go 6 out of the ten times the steak is overcooked and burnt the other 4 it's fine. Your buddy gets 10 perfect steaks. You have been telling your buddy for years, rightfully so that they burn steaks and they are not great. Your buddy says you are crazy and the steaks are fantastic. Its to the point where he doesn't trust your judgement now. So you both go to the restaurant, together this time. Your steak comes out slightly well done, but you say it's burnt. By taking something that wasn't burnt and calling it burnt you just reinforced his entire opinion about you. Now he is adamant that they never burn steaks and you are just seeing things that are not there. This I why I believe these things are such a negative. Racism is terrible and it happens. There is a large swath of people who believe it doesn't exist. When you point to this scenario where there is absolutely no proof that he was racist in this case, just like in every other case listed here, all you are doing is making them dig in their heels. Not only are you not helping things it is actually hurting things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Imagine you and a buddy go to a restaurant, separately. Oh fuck we're back at Cracker Barrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Here's your responses 1. Oh a fucking restaurant metaphor 2. Stop being condescending Your not even trying here. I don't think your really taking it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 :facepalm: Face palm is the equivalent of I don't really understand this issue enough to talk about it intelligently but it seems like I should think this way so I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Here's your responses 1. Oh a fucking restaurant metaphor 2. Stop being condescending Your not even trying here. I don't think your really taking it seriously. I never said anything about condescending, think you need to check the waiter's nametag. And no, I am not taking it too seriously at this point. I'm just here to watch you prevaricate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 The prosecutor and the feds both looked into it. They came to the same conclusion. You can't swipe that widely with your brush. The pattern of whom it is you give the benefit of doubt to is telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Police vs criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Police vs criminals. The cops shot you, therefore you are a criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 The cops shot you, therefore you are a criminal. Nope. Robbing a store and attacking a police officer makes you a criminal. Selling unauthorized cigarettes and resisting arrest makes you a criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 And neither of those things deserve a death sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Nope. Robbing a store and attacking a police officer makes you a criminal. Selling unauthorized cigarettes and resisting arrest makes you a criminal. I feel it it would be really awesome if a cop pulled you (specifically) over for speeding, decided randomly that he then wanted to arrest you (for breaking the law) and when you seem to have an attitude about that put you in a choke hold until you pass out/die. All IMHO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.